My New Argument for a Nonphysical Consciousness

[Juma]

No, interaction of parts never "ends".
Let me give you a poetical image:
Particles interact to form atoms, atoms interact to form molecules. Molecules interacts to form (neuro)cells and life processe. These interacts to form low level neural processes. These interacts to form higher level process, etc. somewhere in this hierarchy we get protominds that interact to form intention and even higher we get interacting intentions that form meaning etc.

It never ends but at each new level it changes shape and somewhere it may be too complex to follow.

I meant that the definitions such as the mind are the interactions in your argument. The mind does not emerge from the interactions because the interactions are the emergent properties. Isn't that what your argument really boils down to?

Did you even read my post? Its sole purpose was to show the layers of emergence.

 

[bigfield]

The mind doesn't emerge from the emergent property -- it is the emergent property. The concept of the mind is an abstraction.

I said that some seem to be making that argument.

That could easily be a misunderstanding on your part. It would help if you could direct us to some particular statements or arguments made by people as evidence of this claim.

 

[ryan]

I meant that the definitions such as the mind are the interactions in your argument. The mind does not emerge from the interactions because the interactions are the emergent properties. Isn't that what your argument really boils down to?

Did you even read my post? Its sole purpose was to show the layers of emergence.

There seems to be some redundancy in what you are saying. I think you said that the mind is the interaction of parts. But now you are saying that there are different layers of emergence. I think it's humans who describe the interacting parts with layers, or why do you need layers at all?

 

[ryan]

I said that some seem to be making that argument.

That could easily be a misunderstanding on your part. It would help if you could direct us to some particular statements or arguments made by people as evidence of this claim.

I will bring it up directly to them. There is no point in trying to figure out what they meant without discussing it with them.

Anyways, isn't everything to us an abstraction? Or did you mean that the mind abstracts?

 

[Juma]

Did you even read my post? Its sole purpose was to show the layers of emergence.

There seems to be some redundancy in what you are saying. I think you said that the mind is the interaction of parts. But now you are saying that there are different layers of emergence. I think it's humans who describe the interacting parts with layers, or why do you need layers at all?

Because you, and I, are human.

You can keep call everything that happens for "interaction between particles" but that will not help you since that is not how you formulate your questions. You speek of "meaning" and "intention" etc. You will never understand how reason rise from "interaction of particles" if you do not realize that these emergent layers are there.

 

[ryan]

There seems to be some redundancy in what you are saying. I think you said that the mind is the interaction of parts. But now you are saying that there are different layers of emergence. I think it's humans who describe the interacting parts with layers, or why do you need layers at all?

Because you, and I, are human.

You can keep call everything that happens for "interaction between particles" but that will not help you since that is not how you formulate your questions. You speek of "meaning" and "intention" etc. You will never understand how reason rise from "interaction of particles" if you do not realize that these emergent layers are there.

Do you think that the mind is process in the brain? Similarly, is the mind exactly equivalent to a process in the brain, with no extra or less properties, or anything else?

 

[Juma]

"Do you think that the fox is an animal? Similarly, is the fox exactly equivalent to an animal, with no extra or less properties, or anything else?"

 

[ryan]

"Do you think that the fox is an animal? Similarly, is the fox exactly equivalent to an animal, with no extra or less properties, or anything else?"

"Animal" is a broader definition than a fox. My question is asking if you believe that a process is bijective to the mind.

 

[Juma]

"Do you think that the fox is an animal? Similarly, is the fox exactly equivalent to an animal, with no extra or less properties, or anything else?"

"Animal" is a broader definition than a fox. My question is asking if you believe that a process is bijective to the mind.

What the fuck? How dense can you be?
Who would be so fucking insane to beleive that all processes in the brain are the mind?

The brain contains millions of processesif you call all these processes "mind" then "mind" doesnt mean anything.

That is why I tell you about layers!

All these processes in many layers together makes up the mind.

That is the insanely complex picture.

 

[ryan]

"Animal" is a broader definition than a fox. My question is asking if you believe that a process is bijective to the mind.

What the fuck? How dense can you be?
Who would be so fucking insane to beleive that all processes in the brain are the mind?

The brain contains millions of processesif you call all these processes "mind" then "mind" doesnt mean anything.

So are you saying that the mind is more than just processes?

That is why I tell you about layers!

All these processes in many layers together makes up the mind.

That is the insanely complex picture.

I need to know your answer to my question above to help me understand what you really mean.

 

[Juma]

What the fuck? How dense can you be?
Who would be so fucking insane to beleive that all processes in the brain are the mind?

The brain contains millions of processesif you call all these processes "mind" then "mind" doesnt mean anything.

So are you saying that the mind is more than just processes?

That is why I tell you about layers!

All these processes in many layers together makes up the mind.

That is the insanely complex picture.

I need to know your answer to my question above to help me understand what you really mean.

Tell me: how can anything be more than a process?

 

[ryan]

So are you saying that the mind is more than just processes?

That is why I tell you about layers!

All these processes in many layers together makes up the mind.

That is the insanely complex picture.

I need to know your answer to my question above to help me understand what you really mean.

Tell me: how can anything be more than a process?

So is the process in the brain the mind if and only if the mind is the process in the brain?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have a question.
If I go into a room with two sticks and a pile of kindling, then twenty minutes later, I have two sticks, kindling and a fire, is the fire an emergent property?

It is certainly a process, rapidly oxidizing fuel. So would the fire be physical, as it cannot exist without the physical fuel? Or the physical oxygen.

 

[Juma]

So are you saying that the mind is more than just processes?

That is why I tell you about layers!

All these processes in many layers together makes up the mind.

That is the insanely complex picture.

I need to know your answer to my question above to help me understand what you really mean.

Tell me: how can anything be more than a process?

So is the process in the brain the mind if and only if the mind is the process in the brain?

Is A B if and only if B is A?

Since identity is symmetric the answer is yes.

But that doesnt say shit about A (or B).

 

[ryan]

I have a question.
If I go into a room with two sticks and a pile of kindling, then twenty minutes later, I have two sticks, kindling and a fire, is the fire an emergent property?

It is certainly a process, rapidly oxidizing fuel. So would the fire be physical, as it cannot exist without the physical fuel? Or the physical oxygen.

Who are you asking this to?

 

[ryan]

So is the process in the brain the mind if and only if the mind is the process in the brain?

Is A B if and only if B is A?

Since identity is symmetric the answer is yes.

But that doesnt say shit about A (or B).

Sorry, let me restate that. Is there no difference between the mind and the process?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have a question.
If I go into a room with two sticks and a pile of kindling, then twenty minutes later, I have two sticks, kindling and a fire, is the fire an emergent property?

It is certainly a process, rapidly oxidizing fuel. So would the fire be physical, as it cannot exist without the physical fuel? Or the physical oxygen.

Who are you asking this to?

Anyone that wants to take a stab at it.

 

[ryan]

Who are you asking this to?

Anyone that wants to take a stab at it.

I think that anything known to exist is an emergent property of something else. I can't think of anything that isn't an emergent property of something else.

 

[PyramidHead]

Who are you asking this to?

Anyone that wants to take a stab at it.

It's a great example actually, because it shows how our interaction with a phenomenon in our environment governs whether we call it a thing (like fire) or a property (like heat).

Linguistically, not many people would say fire is identical to the process of rubbing sticks together with kindling. Nor would they say fire is a property of systems that include friction between dry pieces of wood and straw with added oxygen. Fire is an entity, visible and tangible, that does not exist before a certain level of complexity is achieved with regards to the components you're describing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Anyone that wants to take a stab at it.

I think that anything known to exist is an emergent property of something else. I can't think of anything that isn't an emergent property of something else.

So, for you, emergent property = consequence?